p.1 #1 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
My wife and I travel throughout the world. I was thinking of selling my 70-200 f4L, which is very light, and purchasing of the new new 70-200 2.8L lens. But this lens weighs 1490 grams, which is 3 lbs 4oz. I have a 1ds Mark III camera. Is this lens too heavy as a walk-around lens?
p.1 #3 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
It's only too heavy if you cannot carry it.
I shoot weddings with 2 cameras, 2 f/2.8 zooms, 2 flashes, 2 other lenses (usually 135L, and aother prime), flash meter, triggers, think tank belt system, compact flash and 24AA batteries on me.
If I can do 10 hours with that, I think anyone can walk around with a 1Ds and 70-200.
p.1 #4 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
I've had or shot with several versions of the 70-200.
- Canon 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS .. light, sharp, a breeze to carry around for long trips
- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS ... sharp, has IS, but heavy
- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L non-IS ... sharp, heavy
- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II ... sharp, heavy
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II .. sharp, heavy
For a trip around the world, you're probably not looking for low-light, fast action shots or background-blur ability as much as a sharp, easy-to-use landscape and urbanscape lens. You should do just fine with the f/4 L non-IS or IS. IMHO.
p.1 #5 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
First of all, it's been established, publicly, that at certain times of the year, Robert's BMI makes many of us look like globules of hog fat sitting in a tub of coconut oil.
So, take his sherpa'ing with a grain of salt :P
The f/4 lenses are ideal for travel, though your 1Ds III isn't the ideal travel camera.
Like Jayem says, unless you need f/2.8, don't travel around with it. Would you consider the 135 f/2 as a fast prime instead, splitting the difference of the max/min focal length of your zoom, should you need something with better low-light performance than the f/4 L?
p.1 #7 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
For travel I think the 70-200 2.8s are too heavy. Remember when travelling there is other gears to carry too, it all adds up. I recently tacked a trip around bits of Europe after an African safari. That 100-400 was vital in Africa but it was a useless dead weight in Europe. I suspect the 70-200 would be more useful but that weight problem would be the same, travel with the F4, not the 2.8.
p.1 #8 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
As well as the extra weight there is the extra bulk to consider. If traveling you will be limited by volume as well as weight, especially if flying.
You also need to consider what you want from a walk-around lens ? Any wide angle, for instance ? I personally don't consider a tele-only lens to be sufficiently versatile for that role. The 28-300 is better but the IQ is often not as good.
In any case, you already use the 70-200 f/4 and so presumably you are familiar enough and happy enough with that focal length range. Ask yourself how often you really need to use f/2.8 instead of f/4 before changing lenses, and whether the reduced DOF would be an advantage or disadvantage.
Also consider the way you carry your gear. e.g. would an Optech USA strap work better for you ? It is softer and shaped to spread the load more evenly on your shoulder or neck. Would a hand strap be useful ? I find that the right strap helps reduce the burden of carrying extra weight, at least up to a point. It makes no difference at the airline weigh-in but it is easier to carry
p.1 #9 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
RobertLynn wrote:
It's only too heavy if you cannot carry it.
I shoot weddings with 2 cameras, 2 f/2.8 zooms, 2 flashes, 2 other lenses (usually 135L, and aother prime), flash meter, triggers, think tank belt system, compact flash and 24AA batteries on me.
If I can do 10 hours with that, I think anyone can walk around with a 1Ds and 70-200.
Shows what you know. Just hope you can still do that when you are over 70.
p.1 #10 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Kohala wrote:
My wife and I travel throughout the world. I was thinking of selling my 70-200 f4L, which is very light, and purchasing of the new new 70-200 2.8L lens.
p.1 #11 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Thanks for all the feedback. I just returned from a trip thru the Suez Canal that included a trip to Delhi and the Taj Mahal. My walk around lens was the new Canon 70-300 L. It weighs 1050 grams, a lot lighter than the new 70-200 L. The problem was that you had to increase the iso significantly in low light situations. The extra reach probably wasn't worth it. I think I'll take my 70-200 f/4L with an 1.4 extender on my next trip.
p.1 #12 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Kohala wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback. I just returned from a trip thru the Suez Canal that included a trip to Delhi and the Taj Mahal. My walk around lens was the new Canon 70-300 L. It weighs 1050 grams, a lot lighter than the new 70-200 L. The problem was that you had to increase the iso significantly in low light situations. The extra reach probably wasn't worth it. I think I'll take my 70-200 f/4L with an 1.4 extender on my next trip.
p.1 #15 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
The current 70-200 IS lenses are the only Canon lenses I would consider owning as a pair: f/4 for travel, f/2.8 for sports, classrooms, weddings etc. They are both superb zooms. But for travel, I would always take the f/4 AND, because I love macro work, I would take a f/2.8 100 IS. I find I can use IS indoors as a substitute for lens speed and the current 100 macro has very good IQ.
p.1 #17 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Those kind of heavyweight lenses like 70-200/2.8L or 100-400L are not considered travel lenses in my book. These are "special/specific event" lenses for me.
Last summer, I went to Acadia National Park in Maine. I took 100-400L with me, but that was an exception because there weren't a lot if required walkings with the lens. I can either leave it in the car or take it with me. It's safe enough.
On the contrary, I also went to Italy last summer. I had to reduce the number of gears that I took because there were a lot of walks and no way you can leave anything anyway even 2 feet away from you. (A friend of mine got her purse stolen when she was praying in a church.)
p.1 #18 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
My wife is tiny and hardly takes the 70-200 2.8L IS II off her camera body. You'll adjust to the weight when you realize the extraordinary image quality!!!
p.1 #19 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
I never leave home without my 70-200 II. It's not my walking around lens, ever, but it's such a fabulous lens, and takes extenders so well, it's actually an excellent travel package if you're willing to walk around with it in a backpack (I am, whether hiking or being a tourist).
